Brickwiki:Conventions/Closed Debates

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

These debates are considered closed and implemented. If you have a problem with any of these, please reference the appropriate section (copy if necessary) and reopen the debate at Brickwiki_talk:Conventions along with a reason for doing do.

Contents

Convention on conventions

I think it would be a good idea to mention on the conventions page that it is a covention NOT to edit the conventions page until it has been discussed. On conventions Lar's motto "Be Bold" is not cool. --Tim 22 July 2005 17:10 (Eastern Daylight Time)

That's the wikipedia motto, I just cribbed it!!! and it's ALWAYS a cool motto! But I agree. Pages that codify conventions over there tend not to be edited willy nilly, but rather are talked out first. +++Lar 22 July 2005 18:26 (Eastern Daylight Time)

dimensions and measurements

This issue was settled - Metric units are standard, with imperial units in parenthesis whenever possible.

On a different note, are we metric or imperial first. I favour metric as a dominant with imperial bracketed eg 1cm (0.4 inch), 2m (6'7"). This is partially because I come from a metric country but also because there are TWO imperial systems which has potential to cause a problem if we ever need to mention volumes. --Tim

What do most Lego users use? --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 13:27 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Well, you have the US and UK with imperial and the rest of the world with metric. In terms of Lego, rest of the world means Europe, Australia, NZ, Canada, HK, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. I think the metric wins by a little. But, I think most people can understand metric whilst most Europeans don't have a clue about imperial, which is another reason I favour metric (with imperial in brackets). --Tim 22 July 2005 13:33 (Eastern Daylight Time)
In general, metric is a very convenient system for doing calculations. Does anyone have any good reasons to favor imperial? If there aren't any, we will go with the system proposed by Tim. --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 13:58 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Many 'murricans have no clue about metric either, knowing only inches and pounds etc... Why do we need measurements again? Most things are in LDU since LEGO is not exactly a round number in either system. For example... 'murrican LTC modular tables are all multiples of 10 inches (and change) to conform to the baseplates, for instance MichLTC use 30.25 x 60.5 inches...
Unless we want to write, for example, that Legoland Windsor covers and area of approximately 1.9*10^12 square LDUs (about 30 Hectares which is a guess) we do need them. My suggestion is fine for those who have chosen never to learn a convenient and international system ;-) as it would include measurements in the Queens system bracketed after the Republics. Your example would be 768 mm x 1537 mm (30.25 x 60.5 inches). --Tim 22 July 2005 15:28 (Eastern Daylight Time)
While I think writing something is 10^12 square LDU is amusing in its own right, I agree, there are times when we do need units and the proposal of metric (english equiv) is fine with me. My objections were mostly friday afternoon silliness! ++Lar 22 July 2005 16:03 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Have added some new disussions in this category below

questions page

This issue was settled - Conventions page was created and all discussion is on the talk page.

BTW I think maybe we need an "open questions" page somewhere, I find that I put questions wherever they come up and maybe it is good to put them in a consistent (and easy to find, perhaps in linked from the toolbox section or from help or ???) place? ++Lar 22 July 2005 15:13 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I agree. I'm having a hard time keeping an eye on everywhere I've asked a general question. --Tim 22 July 2005 15:28 (Eastern Daylight Time)
try "watching" a page, it gets added to your watch list. But ya, can we have a questions page? I guess I could create one but whenever I get bold with stuff that is in the BrickWiki: namespace, it's wrong... ++Lar 22 July 2005 16:03 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Oh! I watch. But who watches the 'watches'. Bad joke I know but a central resource for central questions would be handy. --Tim 22 July 2005 16:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Consider it done. As soon as someone makes a good name for it. We really do need one - we overuse the talk pages deciding things that would be of use for the entire wiki. --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 16:14 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Geez V, YOU make up a name. If you want me to make one up it is going to be 'Special Page for asking really important questions that we don't want to lose so we keep them in one place Page'... (Note how that blows the page title capitalization rules all to heck!). OK more seriously I would call it BrickWiki:Global issue discussion ... how's that? ++Lar 22 July 2005 16:26 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I think I've got a good one!!!! What about a page called "BrickWiki conventions" which would have the finalised conventions and we would discuss on its talk page??? It would be linked to from the Help page too. --Tim 22 July 2005 16:47 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Thats great by me. Its created and linked on the main page. --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 16:51 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Spelling

copied from elsewhere(was Spelling, capitali(s/z)ation and suchlike)

While we're ON this topic, what about UK/US spelling... capitalise or capitalize??? As an anglophile I slip into UK spelling quite readily but I suspect that we may want to go with US spelling in article titles. ++Lar 22 July 2005 11:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On the spelling issue, I would favour Commonwealth as I believe it covers a larger portion of the online, English speaking world (all of Europe and the Commonwealth, vs. USA, Singapore, ??) but probably best is for people to keep it in mind and redirect if neccesary. --Tim 22 July 2005 12:02 (Eastern Daylight Time)
S'pore uses Commonwealth (or UK) spelling almost exclusively (I was there in Feb 05). However most E2L speakers (worldwide, outside Commonwealth countries) use US spelling, IIRC. Plus we're the biggest/best/etc etc (LOL). I don't care but we should pick a standard to prevent silly reedits. Or decide that we don't care and whoever edits last gets to decide? Some decision is needed or else we can waste a lot of cycles arguing about it... LOL... we could always go where Wikipedia did. National Varieties of English I know, I know, I bring up Wikipedia a lot. We should not slavishly follow them! but I feel looking at what they did and why can be instructive. In this case it seemed to me to boil down to "be consistent" and "whoever started the article gets to choose" which seemed reasonable. ++Lar 22 July 2005 12:32 (Eastern Daylight Time)
With cycle wasting hat firmly on, I note that TLC seem to use UK or European English (which is pretty much UK English). So should articles about them be in UK? More seriously though, I agree that a "First Author Decides" policy is good unless the article is specifically relavent to a given country in which case the 'official' English of that country should be used. Anyone else got any thoughts? I think that we need to decide pretty quick so that Help can have something about this, otherwise we may end up having to add a lot of pointless redirects, and, worse, having to merge article pairs when someone has been careless. --Tim 22 July 2005 13:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Seems a consensus (of 3?) has been reached, let's do UK for LEGO, just as they do, and first author decides for the rest, unless geographical... Merging articles is not fun. ++Lar 22 July 2005 16:03 (Eastern Daylight Time)
That's fine for me eventhough I really don't know what kind of english is my own spelling :) Didier
I believe you are in the EU so officially your spelling should be European (like UK). THe differences come down mostly to endings. UK mostly use -ise whereas US always use -ize (eg. capitalise=UK, capitalize=US), UK mostly use -re, US mostly use -er (centre=UK center=US). If you are checking spelling on Dictionary.com it will return the US spelling, if you use Oxford English Dictionary it will be UK. There are also Australian/NZ (Macquarie Dictionary) and Canadian versions which differ a little from UK but only on very minor points that would probably not be noticed. See [1] for information. This link should probably be on the main page once a decision is made. --Tim 23 July 2005 09:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)

How does everyone feel about this as a convention:

  • Articles about The LEGO Company/Group should follow UK naming convention as this is used in international TLC press releases.
  • Articles specific to a country, or referring to a named object in a country should follow that countries spelling convention. eg. One might collect American or Australian Programs but would collect UK Programmes, one would capitalise Canberra but capitalize Washington DC. If unsure about the correct spelling, leave a note in the discussiong page.
  • All other articles must follow the convention set by the first author. An article on Centre of Gravity would follow UK spelling, where as one on Center of Gravity would follow US spelling.
Wikipedia's policy is that either spelling is ok. For titles, one redirects to the other. I would follow this, except for proper nouns that have a specific spelling. (It seems to work for them.) --Astronouth7303 23 July 2005 21:07 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Actually, wikipedias policy is almost identical to what I have written above, bar the bit about LEGO. To use a wikipedia example Australian Defense Force is just plain wrong and it should be Australian Defence Force, whereas US Department of Defense is correct. --Tim 24 July 2005 06:06 (Eastern Daylight Time)


VOTE

This topic seems to have been pretty much agreed upon so I propose we vote on a standard. I would like to see the following appear on the Conventions page:

  • Articles specific to a country, or referring to a named object in a country should follow that countries spelling convention. eg. One might collect American or Australian Programs but would collect UK Programmes, one would capitalise Canberra but capitalize Washington DC. If unsure about the correct spelling, leave a note in the discussion page.
  • All other articles should follow the convention set by the first author. An article on Centre of Gravity would follow UK spelling, where as one on Center of Gravity would follow US spelling.
  • Articles about The LEGO Company/Group should follow UK naming convention as this is used in international TLC press releases.
  • Where duplication could arise, an editor should check both spellings before setting up a new article. If an article exists he or she should add a redirect from the other spelling and edit the existing article. Moving an existing article to change spelling is rude.

Please add your vote (with any comments) under the correct category

Yays (yes, ja, oui etc.)

  • --Tim 26 July 2005 12:39 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • --Myko 27 July 2005 06:22 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • --Didier
  • Astronouth7303 27 July 2005 22:33 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Nays (no, nein, non etc.)

  • No. I say Amerika Uber Alles. Er... well... ok maybe not! Actually count this as a yes vote except for the humor value, if any. ++Lar 26 July 2005 16:01 (Eastern Daylight Time)

The Yays clearly have it

Moved into closed debates and copying to BrickWiki:Conventions page. Tim 28 July 2005 07:15 (Eastern Daylight Time)

what not to do

For the record (NOT reopening the debate, just sayin...), scope THIS out: wikipedia:Talk:Gasoline/archive2 ... this debate made the "lamest editwars ever" list. We're not going to fall into THAT trap are we? (for the record it IS gasoline, since that's the chemical name and the industry term, petrol is just slang)... now excuse me I have to go start as many stubs as I can possibly think of that have variant spellings so that 'murrican spelling has to be used in the articles. LOL ++Lar 30 July 2005 09:19 (Eastern Daylight Time) (who doesn't have a fancy sig yet)

Haven't these people heard of a redirect? I just skimmed the start but that is totally ridiculous. Thanks for the amusement. (and hadn't you realised that was why I've been starting so many articles lately ;-) ).Tim 30 July 2005 09:30 (Eastern Daylight Time)
read deeper... there was war over which redirects were the right way to go too. And ya, I noticed your article binging... What you can do I can do too. ++Lar 30 July 2005 10:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Accessible Images

'Moved into Closed Debates after four yay votes'

Moved discussion to Accessible Images and Talk:Accessible Images

Hi all, I have now made an Accessible Images with some guidelines for how to make your images frieendly to visually impaired people. Could I suggest that a link to this could appear on the Help:Contents or BrickWiki:Conventions page. Thanks Tim 24 July 2005 17:49 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I concur with this suggestion, it is good and useful content. (now go support my suggestion about adding more help text for footnotes, please)! ++Lar 26 July 2005 19:01 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Vote on Accessible Images

I propose that a section be added to either the Conventions page or Help page (or both) reading:

In order to help make this site more accessible for visually impaired users, we have created a set of guidelines to aid in the creation of accessible images. This can be found at Accessible Images.

Please vote on the addition of this section and add suggestions as to your preferred location

Yay (yes, ja, si, etc.)

  • (both) --Tim 26 July 2005 19:25 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • (both) ++Lar 26 July 2005 21:16 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • (both) --Myko 27 July 2005 06:24 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • (both) --Didier

Nay (no, nein, non, etc.)

Some additions to dimensions and measurements

One further issue to do with units, when referring to things which differ between US and UK imperials (such as gallons or pints) I think people should ALWAYS specify the system, eg. ?? km/L (10 miles-per-gallon US). --Tim 24 July 2005 08:14 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Yet another addition: dollar prices should always specify the currency eg. $10USD not just $10. We have Australian, NZ and Canada all using $s with quite different values. --Tim 24 July 2005 08:16 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I agree with both of these with the following nit regarding redundancy. I always try to say USD! However it should either be "10.00 USD" OR "$10.00 (US)" because D stands for $!! Further I'd suggest using one of three big currencies where practical (UKP, USD, EUR) except for country specific stuff. I was ready to actually say alway use USD and might argue for that... dunno. ++Lar 24 July 2005 09:13 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Agree with the point about 10.00 USD or $10.00 (US) but not $10USD, however I don't see this as a major issue, the problem would be if someone wrote $10.00. Given the 'flexibility' of the USD of late, I would favour using any of the big three. For smaller currencies like AUD it should be converted into the stablest major cureency trade companion at that time (eg. AUD -> GPB after 2001 (about 20% variation against 40% for USD) but AUD -> USD before 2001) but again, this is not a big deal. Basically, I'm happy that people just say what currency but do think the big three should be used as they tend to be quite stable (not that my national compatriots might agree given some debates on Lugnet ;-)). --Tim 24 July 2005 09:22 (Eastern Daylight Time)
10$USD offends this nitpicker's sensibilities!!! If you remember either say 10USD or 10$ US! ++Lar 28 July 2005 10:31 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I've been thinking about this and, I think this whole section should just read 'Please make it clear which countries dollar prices are in'. The rest can be fiddled with my editors who want to add information so long as they know where they are starting from. Provided someone writes '$10AU', someone can always add '$10AU ($5US at 2001 prices)' if they want to. Anything more is just obsfucation. Tim 28 July 2005 10:41 (Eastern Daylight Time) (Yes! I know I started this whole debate but I think I was addicted to rules that day)

Convention Approval

--SNIP-- it feels like 3 of us (or two outvoting one) are deciding things that apply to everyone, let's not move too fast!... now, I am off homeward... ++Lar 22 July 2005 19:11 (Eastern Daylight Time)

While I agree that we shouldn't be too hasty in our decisions, I do think we need to move quickly in developing some standards so that the amount of back change is decreased. In fact, I think three or five is a perfect number for making these decisions as it is small enough to actually move quickly. I think an iterative refinement process would be good, we try to get the big decisions made quickly and then fiddle with the smaller ones afterwards. Some bad decisions might be made but they can be refined away if neccesary. Just my thoughts --Tim 22 July 2005 19:43 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'm mostly in agreement with the thrust of this...I'd say if all three agree, three is fine for a convention, subject to revision later if a lot of new people are active and think it's not a good way to go but it IS important to get conventions decided and go. It's where it's 2 to 1 that I'm not comfortable going with the majority of two... On the citation footnotes thing I think we hvae more work to do, maybe experiment with a few styles. There are a fair number of articles that use the "External references" convention already ('pedia does it that way), changing all those to biblio seems like work we should avoid... ++Lar 23 July 2005 09:19 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Capitalisation

I notice this (the Suspension bridge article)article has been capitalised and then reverted. What is the article capitalisation standard? I would go for all capitals as one can automate 'move's very easily. I ask as I have discovered that Wiki's are case sensitive (which I think is a bit stupid really) and it will make cross-referencing so much easier. Cheers Tim 22 July 2005 10:36 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Wikipedia usage is to cap only the first word of article titles, proper names excepted, look in recent changes, Astronouth discusses why that works well on some other page that escapes me at the mo. (ah here it is: Help:Contents) I admit I've been bad since I Like to Capitalize All Significant Words... (for example Connection_Type_Degrees_of_Freedom some automation for finding all problem articles might help but just scanning through the list of all articles may be enough. Change them all and put redirects in, I say... I've been bad bad bad when it comes to choosing names. Note that older (nonMediaWiki) wikis use CamelCase as a way to denote links, any word in CamelCase is a link.
While we're ON this topic, what about UK/US spelling... capitalise or capitalize??? As an anglophile I slip into UK spelling quite readily but I suspect that we may want to go with US spelling in article titles. ++Lar 22 July 2005 11:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I hadn't really had a captialization standard in mind - the case sensitive nature of MediaWiki is very stupid. However Astronouth7303 had pointed out one thing - the first letter isn't case sensitive, its always capitalized. He had suggested that all articles have lowercase names, so we don't need to worry about what an article might be named. So this article would be linkable as suspension bridges, or Suspension bridges. Or so the theory goes. If it makes it easier for you, capitializing articles is fine. So long as we are somewhat consistent. --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 11:11 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'll happily go with "First and second" standard as I actually prefer it. I was only capitalising all as I noticed it in other articles. --Tim

Er, is this actually settled? I am not so keen on all lowercase. in fact I'd argue for all caps or at least first and second... articles refer to things that are Proper Nouns, or at lease become so because they are article-ized ++Lar 22 July 2005 18:48 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I think the point is that the Wiki will always "First second" an all lower case entry and the statement does seem to suggest to capitalise things which should be (such as proper names, abbreviations etc.). This means that an article on part customisation will work. Part customisation will also work. --Tim 22 July 2005 18:53 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Just obeyed our brand new convention and 'fixed' the section title given I started this :-P. Slightly more seriously, this is to give an idea of what to do.

The first letter is always capitalized by the software (giving Wikipedia some issues with articles like eBay.) I had some examples as to why all lower is good on Help:Contents. The same argument also applies to plurals. The text "[[supension bridge]]s" is rendered as "supension bridges". My $.02 --Astronouth7303 23 July 2005 21:18 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I read your examples, I'm just not convinced. I think all lower is going to be hard to remember and doesn't really help us much. As I said, usually I think of subjects as proper nouns when referring to them. ++Lar 23 July 2005 21:24 (Eastern Daylight Time)
One of the great things about wikitext is that the markup is simple. Things like '''Don't try this at home!''' are pretty easy to guess. In the examples, you take a sentence and insert markup saying that "btw, that's a link." A random visitor may or may not know that the text in question is a proper noun, requires a specific capitalization, or just jargon. ("suspension bridge" is fairly obvious. "studs not on top" may not be.) --Astronouth7303 25 July 2005 14:52 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Technic is a trademark and therefore needs to be capitalized, just as Lego, or Ford, or Bionicle does even if it is not the first word in the link. I feel our primary audience is not going to be random visitors, it is going to be ALEs who already know this. I do see the point here and I can live with First second third (where third isn't a proper noun or trademark) but not all lower. I am perfectly fine with a baziilion redirects too, for that matter. Bots can do those for us, it's a common bot task. ++Lar 25 July 2005 15:16 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Call for votes

Should we follow a "First second third" convention for all articles not containing a proper or trademarked name

Yea (hai, ye, haan), follow a standard convention of First second third Proper fifth for capitalization

  • --Tim 13:13, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • ++Lar 15:09, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Carsten 15:25, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time) (I guess, not sure what the right way is)
  • --Venkatesh 16:33:57, 2005-08-04 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Nay (iie, a ni yo, nahi) No, follow some other convention, TBD


Citations and Footnotes

Suggest these bullets be added to the Citations section, or to the helps

  • To insert a footnote reference use {{fn|1}} (where 1 is your footnote number, letter, tag etc... it need not be numeric)
  • To give the footnote, use {{fnb|1}} (where 1 matches the ref above) followed by your footnote text.


Where should this be added? to the conventions page? To helps (which page?) Both? ++Lar 29 July 2005 00:38 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Also suggest that the standard way to give links at the bottom be ==External References== rather than the other titles being used. ++Lar 22 July 2005 19:05 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I second this suggestion. Tim 26 July 2005 19:06 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Let's vote on this. Standard way to give links is with ==External References== Yea or Nay?

Yea (yes, oui, da, ja) ... Standard way to give links is with ==External References==

  • ++Lar 29 July 2005 00:38 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • --Tim 29 July 2005 02:59 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Carsten 14:55, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Nay (no, non, nyet, nein) No, some other scheme TBD

Footnotes

Also.. I'm not too keen on all the external refs being footnotes, it means the user has to click twice to follow a link. Footnotes should be for parenthetical or explanatory text,

any discussion? ++Lar 29 July 2005 00:38 (Eastern Daylight Time)



how to handle Megabloks and other clone brands

Moved from User talk:Venkatesh

Are clone-brand articles accepted here? I think they're relevant enough to LEGO, whether or not fans like them. We have articles on disliked things, like JarJar. Besides, not all fans dislike them. I'm just worried there are enough clone-haters to delete every such article as off-topic. SpaceCaptain 20:16, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Absolutely! I have found clone bricks extremely useful for various reasons and would welcome information on them! --Venkatesh 21:14:11, 2005-08-01 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'm the other way round, I guess. A few articles acknowledging they exist is one thing but I'm a LEGO hobbyist, not a MB hobbyist, so would hate to see MB and their ilk dominate things or even have a significant presence... This may be a good topic for BrickWiki talk:Conventions to thrash around a bit? ++Lar 21:47, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Is there that much information on MB or other construction systems? I had always used MB for large-scale buildings, since for basic bricks, they were always cheaper per brick. But I had always found them weaker than legos and the newest set of MB has a different, non-rectangular shape compared to corresponding lego parts. But other than information about what a Megablock is and how it is different from a Lego, what exists? --Venkatesh 09:06:15, 2005-08-02 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Get Dave Schuler in here and you'll see, there is LOTS of info about their sets, themes etc, etc that COULD be included. But putting MB themes in with LEGO themes (which are just called themes now) would muddy things horribly, I feel. Just as with LUGNET and Peeron and BrickLink and BrickSet which don't give MB sets parts and themes equal coverage, if any coverage at all. I'm a snob and I would like MB and other clones relegated to side articles here, as this is a LEGO site, not a generic brick site, and not listed in the themes etc. So we need to flatten this soon. Again, I suggest this be moved to BrickWiki talk:Conventions ++Lar 09:27, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time) (I'll move it later if I have time today)

Yes, all the other sites shortchange clone brands, because they're run by purists. (To give perspective on who's saying this: I no longer consider myself just a LEGO hobbyist. My collection is about 30% LEGO, 60% Mega Bloks, 10% assorted. I don't understand why people always think MB bricks are so weak - they used to be 10 years ago, but their quality has improved.) My suggestion would be: create an article for each clone brand and an associated category. A Mega Bloks theme could then be put in the Mega Bloks category but not the themes category. SpaceCaptain 10:39, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Let's talk about how this parallel categorisation would work before we implement it. ++Lar 11:19, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Here's my idea: There would be a Category: Clone brands containing Mega Bloks, Tyco, etc. There would also be a [[:Category: Mega Bloks]] (which Mega Bloks would also be in), [[:Category: Tyco]] (same procedure), etc. A clone-specific article, such as [[Dragons]] (the MB theme) would be in the category for its brand, in this case [[:Category: Mega Bloks]]. Clone-related articles would not go in any of the currently-existing categories. SpaceCaptain 10:45, 3 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

makes sense, thanks for sharing that!. Also a [[:category:Mega Bloks themes]] category as well for [[Dragons]] [[Alien Agency]], et all? ?? I guess I can get behind this as it keeps things clean. I won't be adding any info but would support this structure (with a little more review, voices of support etc) and the clone fans could get busy. Perhaps a little friendly rivalry too, to spur article creation? ++Lar 10:57, 3 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
This clone brand categorization should allow them to be covered well, while staying out of the way of the purists, so I'll support it too. BuilderQ 11:02, 3 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'll throw my support behind that too. I don't mind that MB exist (well, I do but not enough to want others not to have the benefit of 'those things') but would like it kept separate from LEGO stuff. Tim
I agree with Tim, I don't care for them much, but I sorta feel that they have a place here to be documents. So long as they don't get in the way of 'real' articles. *wink* Jason 24:36, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Is there consensus

3 voices of support and no opposition. Do we need to vote? If not,should Tim or I lay down an article or two and the cats discussed above to show the way, or can the clone guys just carry on (that is, is this a clear enough proposal to implement?)... Go recruit Schuler, you'll get a lot of info that way.

I'll catch cooties if I touch those things. How's this for a convention blurb
==Clone Brands==
Please note, the majority of this site is predominately centred around LEGO brand bricks. There are sections for [[:Category:Mega Bloks|Mega Bloks]] and [[:Category:Tyco|Tyco]] brand blocks and all articles about these brands should be placed in the relevant category or sub-category.
Tim 14:26, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time) (I'd also like to add: "Please avoid such filthy articles." but that might be a little POV)
like the above tag notice, where does it go? Footnote on the main page? (yes, I like footnotes!) PS we're at 200 articles! yaay us... ++Lar 14:43, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
On the conventions page? with a footnote on the main page summarising and pointing to the sectionlink on the conventions page? Tim 14:47, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Organizations/Groups category

Call the question, we've sat on this for a while. I say let's move all organizations, groups, sites, LUGs, etc, to the category category:Fan groups and get rid of the other categories such as resources, commerce, sites, clubs, lugs, organizations, etc etc. everything in Fan Groups should also get an template:OrgTypeBox. The cleanup can be two pronged, first move, then add the box, or if the cleaners wnat to both move the group and add the box too, great. Tim and I cleaned up a small category with about 10 items in it in just a few minutes.

Voting yes signifies agreement with all of the above, moving to Fan groups, losing all other cats (if gthere is content in the cat itself worth preserving, put the content in a new article with that name and put it in the Fan groups category) and use of the OrgTypeBox across the board for all actual entities, be they resources, commerce, discussion, clubs etc. Question called by ++Lar 10:46, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

This sounds good, except... what do you mean by "resources"? Would this include, say, the Peeron set inventories? I don't think they are a "fan group." BuilderQ 14:25, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
It would include Peeron. Its not perfect and if you can think of a better name, please suggest one but the old system was completely confusing. Arguably, Peeron is a fan group as it is run by a fan, although I know its stretching it. Tim 14:29, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Arguably, a group needs to be a group. I think references should have their own category. BuilderQ 19:04, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Good point, I see the logic in that, if we put references somewhere else (maybe BrickLink, BrickShelf, MOCpages too, as "services") categorywise would that change your no vote? If not, why did you vote no? This one seemed to be sailing along, what did we miss??? Help us refine... thanks! ++Lar 19:15, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I voted no because "Voting yes signifies agreement with all of the above", and I disagreed with one point. If references will be distinguished from groups, consider my vote changed. BuilderQ 19:26, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I don't think it makes sense to put Lugnet, Peeron, Bricklink, etc under Fan Groups. Resources or some other name/catagory makes sense to me. Jason 24:17, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Lugnet has been put there, since it says in its mission that it is intended to be a community and an organization rather than a resource, but Peeron, BrickLink, Brickshelf, and the LUGNET Guide, are in resources. I hope it wasn't premature to actually carry out the move, it would have to be undone now, but when I did it, the vote was 4-1, or 5-0 under the assumption of not putting those there, rather in Resources. It can still all be reverted I guess. ++Lar 14:23, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Naw, I went and commented, then read farther down and saw what you said. It's cool. Leave some in Resources and some in Fan groups. Jason 24:30, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

PS, in alignment with our capitalization convention which we almost are agreed on, the category probably should be Fan groups rather than Fan Groups as exists now ( [[:category:Fan Groups]] ... I didn't see how to move a category, we may have to recreate it and flag for delete or something) ++Lar 10:50, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

which is what I did. ++Lar 14:23, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Yes (for Fan groups move)

  • ++Lar 10:46, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • --Tim 10:47, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • ++--Venkatesh 13:06:33, 2005-08-04 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Carsten 15:00, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Jason (Assuming Resource group is added) 24:30, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

No (against Fan groups move)

  • BuilderQ 18:55, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • SpaceCaptain 13:34, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Usage of "local tongue" name spelling

This is an English work right now (don't start on UK/US english please, Tim!) so I have a question, should we be using country and city names as they are accepted in English usage or should we be using the names as said and spelt in the native tongue (at least for romance languages, rendering Kanji or cyrillic is a bit beyond where I want to see us go). Carsten just changed Denmark to Danmark in LEGOLAND parks, presumably because he knows (as a Dane) that's how it's spelt there (see that Tim, I said spelt, not spelled...). How do we feel about that? I sort of think that the accepted english spelling is what ought to be used, even though that's a bit chauvinistic.

Thoughts? Break with convention as Encyclopedia Brittanica, Wikipedia et all have it and leave it (and change other non UK/US/Aus place names to match? Or change it back? or not care, treat this just like the way we treat UK/US, whoever got there first decides and if others want to fix, make a case or ignore it? It's small potatoes when there is so much content needed but still, you know how I am... nitpicky! LOL ++Lar 16:40, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Hi Lar, I promise to hold my tongue about spelling... I think a nice way to do it is to use the English spelling first (which may get complicated when spellings differ between Anglophones) and follow it by the local spelling in brackets. eg. Cologne (Koeln). This way it is correct for everyone (unless it changes between Anglophones in which case I say go with the American spelling because the English spell Asian names very, very badly). How is that for a (relatively US/UK) free suggestion? Tim 16:47, 1 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Call the question ++Lar 14:06, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Just for the record, I changed Dansk which is the language (=Danish) to Danmark the name of the country. For consistency I prefer English spelling all over; the Germans know what Germany is, but some non-Germans are probably not familiar with Deutschland. Carsten 15:07, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Don't worry. Anything can set us off on rules ;-) The spelling issue got started by Lar after I asked about CapitaliSation. Tim 15:12, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Yes (use the US/UK spelling first and if known, show the native language spelling afterwards, in parenthesis ())

  • ++Lar 14:06, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • --Tim 14:16, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Carsten 15:06, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Jason 24:@6, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • BuilderQ 14:30, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

No (always use the native spelling first or only and have US/UK things be redirected to it)


Categories

Categories versus articles

When is a topic a category, and when is it an article? Consider Category:Games (and the talk page Category_talk:Games) I would argue that there is significant content there (hence the stub tag that was removed is valid in my view, but I digress), but it is nevertheless a category. If the content (there is lots more to say about gaming, like why people like it, the norms and mores, how games came about, history, classification schemes, gaming conventions, etc etc) is moved to an article "Games", should that article be in category games? Should it point to it but not be in it? Should category games point to that article? Wikipedia seems to struggle with this near as I can tell, there are guidelines but not always clear cut consensus. Thoughts? ++Lar 26 July 2005 18:35 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Probably move the real content to Games. I've removed the stub tag in categories because it screws up the category structure. (Are all game articles also stubs?) --Astronouth7303 27 July 2005 22:44 (Eastern Daylight Time)

NB. See also Category talk:Software for more specific discussion with relavence to this topic.

subcategories

Are subcategories good or bad? Or neither? Or both?

Consider category:Themes... There are a lot of subthemes of things in general and LEGO is inconsistent... sets used to be "space" but now are subthemed, and Star Wars is a space theme AND a licensed theme. So we have an article Space (or should) and also a category category:Space in which stuff like Blacktron goes. But Blacktron IS a theme too. Should it be in the themes category as well as in the space category? It feels like it to me, all themes should be there even if they are subthemes of a theme.. We've bounced these around a fair bit already and I was advocating that more articles get created before mucking around but it may be time to at least discuss whether it's organized right or not. Purely hierarchical categorization schemes usually are imperfect at best. Thoughts? ++Lar 26 July 2005 18:35 (Eastern Daylight Time)

See BrickWiki talk:Open Questions#Category structure for a suggested category hierarchy relatively free of subcats (scroll down to see the second iteration).

call the question on categories and themes

moved: all LEGO themes should be in a single category category:themes and sub/super shown using the ThemeBox approach. So categories like Space and Aquazone would go away. Tangentially: The castle article with the list of themes could be used as a seed for a bunch of castle subtheme articles like the current forestmen.

Yea (in favour of flattening theme categories into one)

++Lar 21:04, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
--Tim 05:28, 3 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Jason 24:10, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Nay (against, keep the subtheme categories)

  • BuilderQ 23:29, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • --Venkatesh 13:10:25, 2005-08-04 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Carsten 14:59, 4 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • SpaceCaptain 13:34, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Resolution for subtheme question?

The Nays had this one, and it's been a while. So it seems that there is a policy here, but it needs to be stated in the negative... (themes can have subthemes and thuse can be both themes AND categories, separate articles, with a suggestion that the theme link to the category and the category refernce the theme, perhaps?) Anyone want to try writing a policy so this section can be moved to closed debates? ++Lar 13:47, September 1, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Exactly why I have left it. I consider it a policy decision for no poilcy, which is fine but doesn't make for interesting reading on the Conventions page ;) Tim 14:21, 1 September 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
well, I guess I am saying that there IS a policy there... "themes can have subthemes and thus can be both themes AND categories, with separate articles/pages, with a suggestion that the theme link to the category and the category refernce the theme, perhaps?" but worded more "official-like" since you seem to be good at that. Plus that way you'd get to put in some words spelt the UK way (see how I spelled spelt??, I'm always thinking of you, man!) if you wanted to... Helps? ++Lar 14:45, September 1, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Two new conventions

I present two more conventions, one of which was agreed upon by vote and the other of which has been standard practise. Please comment if you are dissatisfied with either:

A little light on UK variant spelt words, but I like it... [[:category:space]] or [[category:space]] though?? Or both? ++Lar 15:47, September 1, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I know! I just couldn't slip in colourised which would have been the neatest. I can't see which one is incorrect there but if any are, please fix them before I put it up. I'm trying to keep it copy-pasteable for newbs so it should at least be correct. Tim 15:52, 1 September 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Well... I think both. The article on the theme Space, in my view should be in category themes AS WELL AS being in category Space. [[category:themes]] and [[category:Space]] But it ALSO should have a sentence alonge the lines of "Space is both a theme AND has subthemes. To see the subthemes of space look in the category: [[:category:Space]]" somewhere in it. The description of the category should have a similar statement... "Space is both a theme AND has subthemes. To see information about the Space theme, look in the [[Space]] article" ... make sense? and ya, colourised is probably the best word to highlight UK/US out there since apparently honourise isn't actually a word! ++Lar 16:20, September 1, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I see what you mean now. Yes. I agree! I'll add that. Tim 16:31, 1 September 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I say do it, put the below two conventions in there, mark this topic as closed and move it to closed debates and see who squawks... ++Lar 17:41, September 1, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Category descriptions

It is common practise here to leave category articles with a brief description of the category and a link to an article with more depth (if needed) and vice-versa. Thus the space category links to the space article and vice-versa. The article should also be included in the category so that space contains the line [[category:space]] at then end.

Theme categorisation

Due to the somewhat layered nature of LEGO themes, it is encouraged that articles about subthemes be categorised under their main theme, rather than the generic themes category. Thus an article about Blacktron whould be placed in [[category:space]] rather than [[category:themes]].


Use of template tables

We have a lot of things that come in large quantities (themes, parts, sets, people, parks, etc) and I'd like to suggest that we start developing tables for them. I made this suggestion elsewhere, then went off and did ConnectionTypeBox. As you can see if you scan recent changes, I have been working on ThemeTypeBox as well... not very far along with it yet. ++Lar 22 July 2005 18:26 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Agreed. And nice looking templates they are. --Tim 22 July 2005 18:29 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I added theme boxes to two themes, Blacktron, and Forestmen... clearly not all the way there yet. I have to head home from chicago soon, but I am thinking that for system (minifig) themes we need stuff like enemies, successors, etc but for stuff like Technic, even the minifig pic isn't appropriate. We may need multiple subbox templates, need to mull a bit. Hack if you want but if not, let me see what I can do later this weekend... actually codifying this as a convention will need a little work too... ++Lar 22 July 2005 18:36 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I would not have expected anything else. I have learned that if you have a set of text that's virtually identical on multiple pages, you should template it. I've also learned that using categories make a much better indexing system than manual indeces on pages. --Astronouth7303 23 July 2005 21:21 (Eastern Daylight Time)
not arguing the cat vs indices point at all. I agree. But some of our cats are a bit messed up. That's a topic for a different subsection. ++Lar 23 July 2005 21:24 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I agree that some of our cats are messed up. I also believe that you set most of them up. So, here's a place to discuss them. --Astronouth7303 23 July 2005 21:30 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I didn't set up the ones I think are messed up! I think we need a way to show all themes and yet a way to also show nesting of subthemes, for instance, and the way things are wasn't all my work, but it was a good try by another user. I'll try to put together a summary of what seems awry to spur discussion. But first some building, I'm just on break... ++Lar

Update from Lar 12:11, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time) I've been creating these, so far worked on OrgType, ThemeType and ConnectionType... ThemeType was split into chunks to allow for different numbers of colors, as an experiment. Not clear if it is working out, it may be too complex... if we get swatchtable to work maybe we don't need it.

For the record here is a list of the templates that are Typebox related so far as of the date of this update:

Note: Template:ConnectionSystem is related but not a box per se. It points to a box though...

Note: also that I created this by doing a DynamicPageList with notcategory=nerdle namespace=template, and then hand pasting the results in and editing them a bit ++Lar 12:11, 2 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Stubs, Superstubs etc.

Hi all, I recently created a new template and category superstubs for articles which contain nothing and can't even be considered stubs. I would also like to see a new category for incomplete articles which are more detailed than stubs but might be missing certain sections, details or other information which would be important for a completed version.

This would cover articles such as flora for which one author can complete the bulk of the article but doesn't feel comfortable filling in all sections. By having its own category it would allow editors who have only a little time to add a missing section(s) to an otherwise complete article without feeling they have to write a whole article from a stub. I believe this would aid certain articles (such as the example) by allowing the targeted application of knowledge.

I propose the name template:incomplete but am completely open to suggestions. Please let me know what you think. Tim 08:45, 20 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

what would Incomplete be for exactly? Articles that are better than stubs but still not quite done? Perhaps instead of just a tag, it would be better to (maybe a list in a box???) say what we think still needs amplification, and invite authors who amplify to remove one or more items from that list. If you wanted to have the box template also put articles in a category incomplete maybe that would work. Are there any superstubs yet? The category seemed to only have the template itself in it... there's something I don't quite suss about that. I ran into it elsewhere, I seem to recall.. ++Lar 20:55, August 23, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
There should be quite a few superstubs at the moment. I created it after discovering articles without even a basic description that I couldn't add to. I've now been using it to create article templates for the Prototype trains (country) article so that people can jump in an edit more easily. As for 'incomplete', I think your suggestion of putting a Stuff Needed box is much better than just coming up with a new category. I might work on a template for it. Tim 04:49, 24 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Let's hash out what this template/box should have in it and give it a whirl. What does it need? A freeform place to put in what is needed, presumably? Are there standard things worth noting the presence/absense of with a yes/no? Should it carry links to various places like conventions, lists of templates that may be helpful to use, the FAQ, etc as a guide to novice writers to help them get productive faster? ++Lar 11:06, August 26, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Perhaps {{ToBeAdded|MissingList=...}} would be a simple and good form and the box would contain links to the FAQ, Conventions etc. so that a novice could find out how to add what they think they could add. I'll work on one in my namespace User talk:Tim/ToBeAdded. Tim 12:27, 26 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
looks good. I think it needs a bit of space above the top, and maybe lighten the purple a bit so it's whiter? Consider using a width="90%" and bigger borders too in order to make it stand out?... Also, should this box go at the bottom or the top of articles? Probably not in the middle though, eh? ++Lar 13:59, August 26, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I've addressed all these points except for the borders. I think the thinner border looks better as it makes it more like a sidesection and less like a table (which it is, but isn't if you know what I mean). I've suggested to put it at the top and have moved it in Flora. I feared it might distract too much from the article but it seemed fine. Tim 14:17, 26 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
first, *I* addressed some of them after I said that LOL, so your addressing them moved them further the way I wanted, I guess... (you've scored so many points colourwise I have to get my innings somehow!), and as for borders, K, sorry, I mean "bigger border" as in "more white space around the box". Default table spacing is far too close to text above and below, in my view. (but then I run on a 1600x1200 pixel 15" laptop)... I agree with the table border itself being the thickness 1 style which I mostly have used myself. (but not always... perhaps we need a committee to go around and fix up all our templates? (KIDDING!) but still the fact that the Brickshelf image box seems to have different top alignment than the setlinks box drives me starkers... )++Lar 12:19, September 1, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
shift left
Did you address them first? I honestly didn't notice but I wasn't paying much attention to it in the first place, it was q uick and dirty template. I find attempting to micromanage HTML tables at best fruitless and at worst suicide-inducing so I hain't touching them ;) I'd be happy to have more space around the table. Is that the 'cellpadding' option? I'll try myself anyway. Tim 13:04, 1 September 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Parts/clearance dimensions. Plate/Stud/LDU?

This came up talking Talk:Washing machine brick about Washing machine brick where dimensions were given in studs. At the risk of being branded an anorak I would have a preference for LDU where possible, as it's the most precise. Using it (with links to LDU) as the primary measurement will increase the literacy of users in this area. I do not oppose giving other measurements in parenthesis as is done for imperial, because metric is preferred... I just think studs as a measurement is VERY confusing, and plate/brick is not much better, although a little (saying plate height is unambiguous but wordy) ++Lar 14:37, September 13, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I agree with this point and add my support for favouring LDU first. A second advantage is that it adds a link to LDU which has more detail about LEGO units than we would want to include in a regular article. Bracketed descriptions mean we can give various units one of which anyone (hopefully) will understand but since LDU are completely unambigious it will always be clear. Tim 14:41, 13 September 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I agree and add my support for favouring LDU. 7studs 15:08, September 13, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I agree too! Although I wrote the page in question studs - LDU it was more a question of not thinking than prefering that way round. Its a learning experience!Talltim 07:26, September 14, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Same topic linking

Should a word be a link everytime it appears in a text, or just the first time? See Dark ages for instance, where AFOLs is a link several times. Maybe a compromise where a word is a link every first time in a new paragraph. --Myko 29 July 2005 08:09 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I like the principle that every word can be a link but perhaps once per article is enough. I'll go with the consensus position. Tim 29 July 2005 08:25 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Wikipedia convention (see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context although parts of it are in dispute) is first time only, or first time "in a while" ... say different sections or different screenfuls for a reasonable screen size. Certainly not more than once in a paragraph. That seems a good convention to me (and ya, I might be guilty of too many links myself. Maybe we need a "cleanup" tag) ++Lar 29 July 2005 11:46 (Eastern Daylight Time)
This was something I was wondering, but couldn't find any mention of at the time. When creating the page that prompted the thought I made every instance a link but actually prefer the 'first time' rule (or once per screen page). IS this the consensus? Can we agree on this or are there strong objections? If so my next task will be a cleanup operation.Talltim 07:17, September 14, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Referring to sets

I have always written a set as Title (12345) which seems to me to be the way LEGO does it (ie: Market Street (10190) but I see some sets are written up as 12345 Title (ie: 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer). I cannot find a convention for this. I understand that titles can vary but with redirects I see not real reason we cannot make it easier to read. If we must use the number first perhaps we could use the Brickset convention of 12345: Title. Tedward 16:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm happy enough to switch to Title (number) format. I don't think there was any reason we chose the current standard more that it just happened. Tim 16:52, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think maybe LUGNET does it that way? Consider how the title for the best set ever made (POV warning!) displays: http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6399 ... that is no argument that we HAVE to do it that way, but I seem to recall when we (I?) first started doing it, that was what I was thinking anyway. Hope that is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Of course ultimately we could have all so long as we stick to a main format. Do you think people are more likely to know the official name or number of sets? Tim 19:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm a propeller head about sets but for the most part I know them by number, not name. Further, the names vary by geography but the set numbers hardly ever do. That said, I think most people tend to know the names more than the numbers. Also, remember that the article TITLE has little or no bearing on findability if you've: 1) set up redirects for the other titles and 2) used the pipe trick when categorising to alphabetise the way you want... so someone could flang up a bot to create redirects for all the articles that fit the other pattern and modify the categorisation too. In fact I've tried to get AWB to work here, just not very hard, that tool would make short work of the job if it were desired. So I'm not really sussed about it staying, or changing. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Well one thing to remember if they go in a category, they'll be sorted by the title. And sorting numbers alphabetically can be confusing for some, so I'm thinking maybe put the name first. ROSCO 19:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still kinda new here. Do we have to have some sort of vote or do we have a new convention here? Tedward 23:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't see a consensus here but I also don't see this as a big deal either way, worthy of a vote. I would point out that it might be a fair bit of work to change all the articles since no one has a bot here yet so that seems an argument for the status quo. Those who want to see the title the other way could set up redirects. (which to be fair is almost as much work). Just in case people don't know what I mean by the pipe trick for categories I did it to 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer... it now sorts by I rather than 1 in its categories. ++Lar: t/c 06:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
My mistake. In most meetings I attend no objections = consensus. I see some technical concerns but no objections per se to the concept. I am willing to start creating redirects but the sooner we establish a convention the fewer such edits we will have to make. Tedward 11:52, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
There is a need to sort the issue of sets that have different names in different geographies. How would those be handled? Article under the US name (and not the UK one) and redirects for the rest? Note that this doesn't actually matter to the name vs number order. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Why not simply treat it like other language/regional issues (such as color/colour)? Whoever writes the article chooses their preference for US or UK or other regional name. If someone else feels the need for an alternative, they create a redirection from the other possibility(-ies). Claude Bombarde 21:52, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'd be happy to have author chooses so long as we use the pipe trick. Otherwise the sorting will be very messy. Tim 21:54, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't need the pipe trick at all if we switch to title (number). I know working in a library warps my mind but it is driving me crazy seeing a system of nomenclature using catalog numbers rather than proper titles in an encyclopedia. I still see no objections to my proposed convention. I see three votes YES (Me, Tim, Rosco); zero votes NO ; and two ABSTENTIONS (++Lar, Claude). How do I call question?Tedward 12:21, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Call it closed, add it to the conventions page and move it to Closed Debates. Tim 12:33, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

AFOL versus ALE

Which should be generally used? Or are they interchangeable? BuilderQ 09:46, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I would say that unless you are describing someone (like in the people articles where you should use that persons preferred term if known) use whichever you prefer. They are pretty much interchangeable. Tim 09:50, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
PS. Just checked and they each point to the other. The AFOL article is a bit bigger if that sways you in any way.
I'll be using ALE as I think it is a term that is gaining in popularity and acceptance. Many fans never really liked AFOL because of the easy shift to "Afool" or even worse "a-hol(e)" but I agree with Tim, use whichever you prefer. ++Lar 10:13, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
It's funny, but I much prefer AFOL as I hate the word enthusiast. I suspect partly though it's an accent thing. AFOL said in 'Strine or any of the British accents has a round O whereas in American or Canadian accents it is closer to the sound in Hole. Tim 10:30, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I prefer AFOL as, unlike ale, it is not a word. How about Eternal LEGO Fan? :D BuilderQ

External Images Convention

Hi all, I added a section on external images to the conventions page without going through debate and/or a vote as I doubt anyone would disagree and it seemed like a good thing to have on quickly as it reduces the risk of BrickWiki being sued if someone broke copyright law (for example). As I said, please revert if you want. Tim 14:57, 7 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Seems good, acting right away seems needful. I added a new template for Brickshelf images template:ImageBoxBrickshelf to capture that they come from there, that the original uploader holds copyright, and to use Brickshelf thumbnails ++Lar 15:11, 8 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Looking more at the convention, since Brickshelf encourages (or did) external linking, perhaps some revision to the convention to say that using the ImageBoxBrickshelf is a good approach for BS images is in order? ++Lar 20:31, August 23, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Article Title Capitalization (again)

A nit, the title of the convention currently called "Article Title Capitalization" should be " Article Title Capitalization and Plurality" because the second bullet under that convention requests use of the singular form rather than the plural, that is, it's not about capitalization at all!... ++Lar 20:31, August 23, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

New "Websites" Category?

(taken from this page)

I've been working on writing articles for all the "broken links" currently in the Classic-Castle article and related articles, including articles on Bruce's BrickTales site and Tony's Kingdom Of Ikros site. Might it be possible to have a "Websites" category added here? I know the current websites listed (LUGNET, Classic-Castle, etc) are Fan Groups, but sites such as BrickTales are not. Right now, personal LEGO Fan sites really don't fit into a catagory at BrickWiki. What do you all think? And while we're on the subject, how does one add categories? Can they only added after a discussion like this? I dug about a little in the code but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. -- Lord Of The LEGO 01:59, November 4, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)

I think this is a good idea. To make a websites category, just add [[category:websites]] to the bottom of a page and follow the red link that will appear at the bottom in the categories section. You can then edit the category page to add a synopsis of the category and add that line to any relavent pages. Tim 04:08, 4 November 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
Agreed. What's it a subcategory of, though? Fan groups? resources? Every category should ultimately trace back to the menu... (remember, to make a category a subcategory of another, place the supercategory in the descriptive text of the category) ++Lar 07:47, November 4, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)

Character Pages

I have taken the convention agreed to in Talk:Cam re: characters and added it. If I have not captured the gist please edit. Tedward 16:03, 19 May 2012 (CDT)

Set lists

Appears there is a bit of a controversy perhaps about whether set lists should be included in theme articles or not. Perhaps a discussion here might be good? Personally I think a few examples help understand the theme but a comprehensive list may be more than we care to try to accurately maintain. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I've got nothing against them per se but I don't really see the use. I'd prefer to see a sample rather than a full list though. Tim 18:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Good thought, Lar. Examples rather than a list is appropriate (and possibly a total number of sets to give some perspective to the size of themes), and maybe links to external lists, if appropriate. Claude Bombarde 19:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
When I proposed adding the contents of BIP it was made clear to me that this is not a database. There have been several complaints about pages of just lists. Articles should include examples and obviously we have a category:famous sets but a list is not an article. For an example of a good integration see: Bob the Builder where a template has been used to provide more than a simple list. I don't see the point to duplicating Peeron especially when it has already been integrated into BW so well with various templates. As for Howarthe's comment re: UCS Batmobile not being listed in Peeron's index all I can say is Peeron can make errors/omissions and that would be why in the article a separate link was provided to the Peeron entry to make up for the Peeron error. And while we are at it, are the outdated LEGO Factory inventories really articles? They should be considered in this discussion as well.Tedward 23:18, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
A theme is by definition a collection of sets. I don't see how any article about a theme could be considered complete without including a list of the sets. Most themes seem to consist of far fewer than a dozen sets, so I don't see maintence as such a critical issue. All of the articles here are under construction. That's the nature of a wiki. Images of every set are hard to come by, so I can see the necessity of providing only images which offer an example of the theme. I think links are an excellent idea, but if we are going to provide links instead of lists, then I can't see any point in writing articles on themes at all. What are you going to say about a theme if you are not going to list the sets? I don't mean to say that the set list is the only thing to say about a theme, but if you have to go somewhere else to get the rest of the story, then what is going to bring people here? People surfing around Brickwiki will end up at Peeron to get their half of the story, but people surfing around at Peeron will not end up at Brickwiki to get our half of the story. Why don't we go ahead and write the whole story? -Howarthe 23:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
There's an excellent article over at wikipedia about mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal), yet it doesn't contain a list of them. Perhaps that example is a little on the absurd side, so how about the article on AFOLs here (http://www.brickwiki.org/index.php?title=Adult_fan_of_LEGO) no list of AFOLs in sight. Claude Bombarde 02:31, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
If someone is interested in finding a complete list of sets from a theme then they shouldn't be checking BrickWiki. There's no point in reinventing the wheel. If, however, someone wants to find out about the history of a theme, or fan additions to the theme then BrickWiki is a logical place to go to. Tim 07:55, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Trains is a good theme article and it is not a list of sets. There is lots more to write about than has been written about Town.Tedward 09:51, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Set list vote

I'd like propose the following be adopted as the convention on Set Lists:

There are many excellent databases that provide [[set list]]s for every [[theme]] 
including [[Brickset]], [[Peeron]] and [[BrickLink]]. Duplication of such lists on 
BrickWiki is discouraged. An easy method of linking to these resources is provided 
by the [[:Template:SetList| Set List template]] which will create a sub heading 
and formatted table within an article.

Please vote YES or No. Thanks, Tedward 16:17, 3 December 2009 (EST)

  • Yes (set list should be discouraged here) ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 4 December 2009 (EST)

BrickWiki or Brickwiki?

I cannot find any discussion of this and I see both used all over the place. I thought it was BrickWiki and would like to see that adopted as a convention. Tedward 13:43, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I am horrid at remembering this sort of thing so a standard would be good. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
OK, I thought we had decided this one? We have started using the BrickWiki spelling generally in correspondence and on pages so can we accept this as adopted? Tedward 10:03, 25 May 2012 (CDT)
I vote BrickWiki. --ALittleSlow 21:49, 28 May 2012 (CDT)
I am going to assume consensus on this. BrickWiki it is. --ALittleSlow 11:14, 30 May 2012 (CDT)
...and the Conventions page now reflects that. --ALittleSlow 11:17, 30 May 2012 (CDT)
Personal tools